For McCain, I think it depends on who he's running against. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I would be willing to bet the bank he asks Condoleeza Rice. She may not accept, but I think that's where they'd go first. If he's running against Hillary...different story. Then...I still think you'd get a woman, but a different one...say, Sarah Palin:

On the Democratic side...who knows...except that it WON'T be Hillary if Obama wins the nomination. If Hillary manages to pull this out--which I still think she will do if she wins Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania--I think she asks Obama and he probably declines. The next two names that float up in my mind are John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

With McCain the choice isn't only about how the VP will help carry states. McCain will be 72 when he takes office if he's elected and his health isn't robust. Average life expectancy for males in the US is 75. Top-notch health care or not, that's a major issue. Given that McCain's VP will be more likely than anyone since Bush I to succeed, how will that impact Republican thinking?

Palin looks interesting, but I'm not sure she gets the religious-conservative vote they may be angling for. On the other hand, based on that picture, she'll irritate the hell out of PETA.

I think McCain will pick someone from the conservative wing of the republican party. Maybe Fred Thompson? Obama may go with Richardson to help with the Hispanic vote.

McCain won the nomination by running away from the conservative wing of the party. He doesn't keep his independents and moderates by picking Fred Thompson.

I thought it was more that McCain won because everyone in the party hated him less than everyone else. The Christianistas hated Romney, the people who hate New York with a passion hated 9ui11iani, etc.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I would be willing to bet the bank he asks Condoleeza Rice.

Why on earth would he ask one of the biggest (and most incompetent) Bush backers on the planet to be his running mate? Heck, you might as well expect him to ask Cheney. Obama can easily win by running AGAINST Bush, not by embracing him (like John McCain and the entire Republican establishment has).

I've heard rumors of Obama talking to Edwards, which would be "Teh Greatest Thing Evar", IMO. At one point I thought Hillary might be pushing for it, but it seems like she's going all or nothing.

Now I'd be pretty surprised if McCain wasn't going to pick Lieberman so they can flog the whole phony "bipartisan" thing.

I think McCain will pick someone from the conservative wing of the republican party. Maybe Fred Thompson? Obama may go with Richardson to help with the Hispanic vote.

McCain won the nomination by running away from the conservative wing of the party. He doesn't keep his independents and moderates by picking Fred Thompson.

I thought it was more that McCain won because everyone in the party hated him less than everyone else. The Christianistas hated Romney, the people who hate New York with a passion hated 9ui11iani, etc.

I think it was that debate where McCain was the only candidate who forgot his KKK robes that put him over the top.

Why on earth would he ask one of the biggest (and most incompetent) Bush backers on the planet to be his running mate? Heck, you might as well expect him to ask Cheney. Obama can easily win by running AGAINST Bush, not by embracing him (like John McCain and the entire Republican establishment has).

Er, I think you misunderstood him. I think he's saying that if Obama gets the nomination then McCain will pick Rice.

Why on earth would he ask one of the biggest (and most incompetent) Bush backers on the planet to be his running mate? Heck, you might as well expect him to ask Cheney. Obama can easily win by running AGAINST Bush, not by embracing him (like John McCain and the entire Republican establishment has).

Er, I think you misunderstood him. I think he's saying that if Obama gets the nomination then McCain will pick Rice.

Oh, you are right then, I did misunderstand.

I doubt even McCain would pick Rice, for reasons I've mentioned before: if Rice runs for a public office and loses (which she would), it's going to break the bullshit talking point that blacks will only vote for someone based on race. Realistically speaking, Rice isn't going to stir up any excitement in EITHER the black or female demographic. And it's for that very reason they won't run her- it would break the narrative.

How can they continue saying minorities will only vote for people in their applicable demographic if they refuse to vote for the applicable Republican candidate? So instead, they just make sure no applicable Republican candidate runs. They sure did a good job of dismantling Colon Powell's political career, although he was sure glad to do a lot of the heavy lifting on that one.

I'm not believing anything reported in the media at the moment. The MSM has been spewing nothing but Republican propaganda for over a decade, I don't see that magically changing anytime soon.

The news reports were denying any kind of a landslide Democratic victory in the 2006 election, too. They've also been calling "Teh Surge" a success, when it cleary isn't. They were saying Saddam had WMD (OMG, 45 minutes to launch!!!), which he didn't. They were denying there was a civil war in Iraq, which obviously there was. They were claiming "Mission Accomplished" in Afghanistan, when GWB obviously cut and run from that one. They are STILL denying the war profiteering going on in Iraq, all the Republican bribery/fraud/sex scandals, the blatant rigging of at least two federal elections, funding of terrorism, etc.

Most major media outlet are owned by a few companies, and those companies are clearly pushing an agenda. When almost everything you read in the paper will be proven false in, at most, a year later, it's not too difficult to conclude that the truth is a very insignificant part of what is being said.

So if McCain wins it will surely mean that the Republicanz cheated again right?

If Obama wins will that mean they didn't cheat enoungh?

Pretty much... but it's not going to even come to that. There's no way McCain, or any Republican, is going to get out from under the shadow of Iraq. He hasn't even tried- in fact, his "strategy" has been to hug himself even tighter to the worst foreign policy blunder in US history, and to hug himself even tighter to the policies of the worst president in US history.

That Republicans are even being displayed as relevant anymore is simply a work of propaganda. The corporatists tried to take over the country, and failed. Their huge push was to get GWB elected, and that was an unprecedented failure. The conservatives got literally everything they wanted... and the result was epic levels of war profiteering, the devastation of two sovereign nations (one of them in violation of both domestic and international laws), the destruction of vital infrastructure (bridges and roads, product safety, food safety, drug safety), epic levels of fiscal irresponsibility, the destruction of not just public trust in the USA, but the destruction of confidence in America throughout the world, and on and on it goes.

Conservative leaders spent the bulk of the 90s telling everyone who would listen how much better everyone would be if they were in charge, if they had a one party rule of government. Well, they got it... and witness the bitter fruits of E Coli Conservativism.

America is rejecting the Republicans and their Neoconservative agenda on a level which will be potentially (and hopefully) devastating to them as a national party. All their policy failures never served as a warning to try something different. Quite the opposite: the harder they failed, the more they became convinced they were on the right course. The Democratic victory in 2006 exceeds anything in our nation's history, but amazingly that little factoid is never spoken of in the MSM. Why? Because it doesn't fit their narrative, and is thus one of those irrelevant truths which one must never speak of, or permit others to speak.

Quote

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. -Joseph Goebbels

These are educated people. They aren't stupid. They know what they are doing, and the reasons why they are doing it.

If you think those reasons will ever benefit you, as one of the general citizens of the United States... you're walking through life with blinders on. The only thing that saves us, as human beings, from people like these, is that they are simply so incompetent and inept. And while they are educated people, they aren't creative or intelligent. Oh, they are clever, that's certain: they can always strategize their way into power, but they really don't have the wisdom to rule effectively. The only thing they know how to do is cover up their long trail of failures, but those eventually catch up to them.

I think this is also why conservative voters are always so prone to believing nothing really matters, and that it's impossible to effect positive change in our government. The problem is that conservatives continuously follow leaders who lie and manipulate their way into power- conservative voters are simply a vehicle to be used to promote a highly corruptible megalomaniac. So it's perfectly understandable these used and abused voters are going to feel disillusioned, since nothing they were promised has ever been realized, or if it has (like conservative ideas like smaller government or cutting taxes) it has never produced a single positive result.

Now compare that to liberal voters, who have effected a great deal of change in America. They've established a democratic nation not ruled by a distant monarch. They've ended slavery, and made huge gains in ending wage slavery through the organization of workers and workplace safety laws, and creating fairness and dignity for people in the workplace. They've made huge strides in civil rights and rule of law. Those are all victories build upon the back of fundamentally sound political policies. So when you compare those two track records, of course liberals are going to have the far more positive, optimistic, and "can do" attitude. Because, realistically speaking, Liberals "can do".